epistemologue Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 I have not studied much cognitive science yet, so I'm curious to what parallels there are between cognitive science and Objectivism / Objectivist epistemology. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 Objectivism says that man has a rational faculty and that emotions are not tools of cognition. The study of human cognition confirms this ability. However, these studies also show that it is very common for people to make decisions using certain automated responses which they are not able to justify if they think things through. If one can reconcile these results with Objectivism, cognitive theory supports Objectivism. If not, it challenges it. I recommend a small book "Influence" - by Cialdini and a good starting point. A longer and more comprehensive book is: "Thinking : Fast and Slow" - By Kahneman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEgoist Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 Objectivism says that man has a rational faculty and that emotions are not tools of cognition. The study of human cognition confirms this ability. However, these studies also show that it is very common for people to make decisions using certain automated responses which they are not able to justify if they think things through. If one can reconcile these results with Objectivism, cognitive theory supports Objectivism. If not, it challenges it. I recommend a small book "Influence" - by Cialdini and a good starting point. A longer and more comprehensive book is: "Thinking : Fast and Slow" - By Kahneman Along similar lines, Antonio Demasio has written a superb book entitled "Descartes' Error" wherein he shows that emotion and reason are not in opposition. The work of Alva Noe is worth a look, especially "You Are Not Your Brain". Noe has some free papers available on his website. There has been a lot of work in concepts that can substantiate Rand's claims of concept formation, and a lot more that might prove to be reasons against it. I'll try and create a list in the next day of some interesting readings on concept formatoin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epistemologue Posted June 25, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 There has been a lot of work in concepts that can substantiate Rand's claims of concept formation, and a lot more that might prove to be reasons against it. I'll try and create a list in the next day of some interesting readings on concept formatoin. I would definitely be interest to see this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reidy Posted June 26, 2012 Report Share Posted June 26, 2012 Robert Campbell of Clemson is an Objectivist who has written extensively on cognitive science. I'm not acquainted with his writings, buy you can check them out at http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~campber/vita.html. At least one of his articles is online: http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~campber/randcogrev.html. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epistemologue Posted June 26, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 26, 2012 At least one of his articles is online: http://hubcap.clemso...randcogrev.html. This is excellent, thanks for this! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.